The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Steel nails imported after 12:01 a.m. Feb. 8, 2020 by Hilti that remain unliquidated will remain unliquidated, per a June 30 order from the Court of International Trade. Hilti filed the consent motion to enjoin the liquidation June 29, claiming that it's likely to succeed on the merits of the case. Hilti argued that because the court ruled that the expansion of Section 232 tariffs to cover steel and aluminum “derivatives” violated statutory time limits in PrimeSource Building Products v. U.S., it should succeed in its case since it shares the “same cause of action” as PrimeSource (see 2106290041). The entries will remain liquidated until the “final resolution of the merits of this case, including through any appellate process” (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

Plexus Corp., the plaintiff in a customs classification case over printed circuit board assemblies used in audio-visual transmission equipment, wants proceedings stayed pending the Department of Justice's consideration of its settlement offer. According to the June 30 motion to stay in the Court of International Trade, Plexus said that a stay would help avoid "incurring unnecessary significant additional expenses" should the settlement offer be accepted (Plexus Corp. v. United States, CIT #13-00343).

The Commerce Department's decision to swap the basis for its total adverse facts available determination in an antidumping administrative review is backed by substantial evidence and in line with Court of International Trade remand orders, the Department of Justice said in June 30 comments on the remand results. After Judge M. Miller Baker found that Commerce improperly relied on two issues with plaintiff Hung Vuong Group's data submitted to the agency to determine AFA, Commerce flipped to two other elements of HVG's data to make the same determination (Hung Vuong Corporation, et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00055).

The Court of International Trade ruled June 29 it doesn't have jurisdiction over one of 12 entries of plywood from China in a customs case because the plaintiff didn't protest that entry's reliquidation. The lawsuit will continue over the remaining 11 entries.

The following lawsuits were recently filed at the Court of International Trade:

Hilti, Inc., with consent from the Department of Justice, moved for the Court of International Trade to stop liquidation of its steel nail entries pending a result in its challenge of the expansion of Section 232 tariffs onto steel “derivatives,” in a June 29 filing. The importer wants the court to bar CBP from liquidating its steel nails entries subject to the 25% steel derivatives tariffs for entries made after 12:01 am Feb. 8, 2020. Hilti conferred with Ann Motto of DOJ, who consented to the suspension of liquidation, without addressing the likelihood of success in the case, the company said (Hilti, Inc., v. U.S. et al., CIT # 21-00216).

Citgo Petroleum filed a lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking to stop international trading company Teknik Trading from auctioning off its goods that are “stranded” because Citgo's parent company is subject to U.S. sanctions. According to a June 25 complaint, Citgo contracted Teknik to store then deliver over $11 million worth of goods intended for Citgo's parent company, Petroleos de Venezuela S.A. (PdVSA). Once PdVSA was sanctioned by the Treasury Department's Office of Foreign Assets Control, the goods were frozen (Citgo Petroleum Corporation v. Teknik Trading Inc., S.D. Tex #4:21-02086).

The Department of Justice invoked a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit opinion in an antidumping case involving a country-wide rate for a non-market economy, according to a June 28 notice of supplemental authority in the Court of International Trade. In the case, the China Manufacturers Alliance and Shanghai Huayi Group Corporation said that Commerce determined a country-wide antidumping rate without providing the legal basis for doing so in an antidumping investigation of truck and bus tires from China (Guizhou Tyre Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States, CIT #19-00031). But in China Manufacturers Alliance, LLC v. United States, decided on June 10, the Federal Circuit said that Commerce can assign a China-wide rate “by the very means in which Commerce did in this investigation,” DOJ said. The decision showed that Commerce's China-wide rate is an individually investigated rate (see 2106100044).

The petitioner in an antidumping case, Catfish Farmers of America, is incorrect in its assessment that the Commerce Department erred by departing from the "expected method" for calculating the antidumping duty rate for non-individually reviewed "separate rate" respondents in an administrative review on frozen fish fillets from Vietnam, the Department of Justice said. Responding to the petitioner in June 28 comments on the second remand results at the Court of International Trade, DOJ, along with comments from the plaintiffs led by GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, said Commerce properly adhered to court orders by setting a lower rate for the exporters (GODACO Seafood Joint Stock Company, et al., v. United States, CIT #21-00063).